8 ms·

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative scientists: FB’s practices ‘antithetical’ to mission

74 points by aspenmayer 6y ago

aspenmayer 6y ago
For those who have trouble with the link: https://archive.st/archive/2020/6/www.washingtonpost.com/hwg9/www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/06/chan-zuckerberg-initiative-open-letter-trump/index.html https://archive.st/archive/2020/6/www.washingtonpost.com/hwg... Original title was too long. It was: Scientists funded by Zuckerberg sent him a letter calling Facebook’s practices ‘antithetical’ to his philanthropic mission
RodgerTheGreat 6y ago
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative's mission is to shelter most of Zuck's wealth from taxation while ensuring that he and his wife retain as much control over it as possible. Facebook's negative externalities are orthogonal to this mission.
- liamcardenas 6y ago
  It’s a for-profit LLC[1], not sure how he would be sheltering wealth... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Zuckerberg_Initiative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Zuckerberg_Initiative
- ryan93 6y ago
  If the money is going to actual scientists who cares that he controls it. Its his money!
  - llukas 6y ago
    It is no longer his money after donating to the foundation. He ceded control of the money in order to get certain tax benefits.
    - ryan93 6y ago
      What are you talking about. He decides where the money goes even when it’s in the foundation. He gets tax benefits for giving it to things considered charitable by the government.
      - llukas 6y ago
        Did they stop teaching civics in class? https://chanzuckerberg.com/grants-ventures/grants/ https://chanzuckerberg.com/grants-ventures/grants/ "Grants are awarded via three funding entities: the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation, a 501(c)3 private foundation; the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Donor-Advised Fund (DAF) at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation; and Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy, a 501(c)4 organization." Now please do check how money needs to be spent by 501(c)3: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... He still has significant control and influence that can be exerted by foundation. Yet, buying lambo or yacht with this money is harder.
        ComputerGuru 6y ago
        He does not need to buy a Lamborghini or a yacht with that money: there are plenty of other ways to use money to secure power or influence that do not involve the purchase of physical things.
        llukas 6y ago
        > He still has significant control and influence that can be exerted by foundation. You do not agree with this part or just to want to highlight influence part?
        ComputerGuru 6y ago
        I agree with that part but I disagree that the inability to purchase an expensive car with that money in any way matters at his scale.
- austenallred 6y ago
  Giving your wealth away may make it so you don’t have to pay taxes on it but it’s not really a “shelter”
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  Zuckerberg net worth: ~$78b. Mean US neurosurgeon annual income: ~$600k So Zuckerberg is worth 130K neurosurgeon-years. Neurosurgeons are the highest compensated surgery specialty [1]. In the US there are a total of 50k surgeons of any type [2]. Does anyone think that Zuckerberg created, with his own hands, >=3x the annual economic output of all US surgeons? [1] https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-average-doctor-salaries-by-specialty-e2bbbc0a6186 https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-average-doc... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/209424/us-number-of-active-physicians-by-specialty-area/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/209424/us-number-of-acti...
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Neurosurgeons can only work on one patient at a time. Facebook serves over a billion people, so yes that is entirely possible.
    - ihm 6y ago
      Did Mark Zuckerberg make Facebook all by himself?
      - imgabe 6y ago
        Nobody ever claimed he did. His net worth is, at the moment, ~11.6% of the total market cap of Facebook. Do you think the other people who helped create Facebook worked for free? Do you think a neurosurgeon does a surgery all by himself?
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        A better question is, did the other people who helped create Facebook receive total compensation anywhere close to proportional to the value they created for Facebook? Not a rhetorical question. I’m curious what the estimated value to Facebook a high level employee is, relative to the compensation they receive. Then compare that ratio to Zuckerberg’s ratio.
dannykwells 6y ago
Have any returned the money yet? Until then, well, its just more words.
- JamisonM 6y ago
  What is wrong with more words? Putting your name to something like this is certainly endangering future funding, that seems like more than just "words".
bitexploder 6y ago
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks —— This is what FB has always been
- ryan93 6y ago
  What bad things have happened to the people that submitted that information?
  - McTossOut 6y ago
    Uh, in order: live in a society bottlenecked through a trashy parasitic exploitative dump of a communications tool, be subjected to psychological experimentation, be in a market where technology is constantly locked away and consuned by behemoth new megalodons whose sole purpose it to appreciate 400% every 10 years, live in a society malleable enough to be purchased, still haven't woken up from the nightmare.
tropheusduboisi 6y ago
I'm a scientist that benefits from this money. I'm not a Zuck fan, but I don't like strict policing of speech so I'm alright Zuck's move here. Moderate scientists keep quiet in academia for their own good.
- boplicity 6y ago
  The problem doesn't have anything to do with policing speech. The problem is the intentional propagation and promotion of inflammatory speech. It is one thing to allow hate speech, it is another to increase it's prominence because it is "more engaging." Facebook does just that.
  - ryan93 6y ago
    Every one knows it's either trump saying fake tough guy stuff; or it was an actual order for the military to shoot looters. In which case people need to know so they can stay safe.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    The newspaper + money + printing costs system has done that for generations. If you want engaging information to stop being spread more than less-engaging information, then you're going to have to come up with a way to stop more engaging newspapers from printing more copies than less-engaging ones.
    - dannyr 6y ago
      There is a big difference between a newspaper and Facebook (with over a billion users) spreading misinformation. This is like comparing a match stick to jet fuel.
      - dmix 6y ago
        As long as you never click on a comments button or scroll down on any page, which is basically what Facebook is in reverse. The comment sections on NYT (apparently the "good" paper) is one of the worst places on the internet. Yet I'm totally okay with it existing because I understand stupid people exist, no matter how much (highly selective) censorship we allow to exist. Not to mention the serious decline in quality of actual NYT content which seems to select heavily for this commenting audience. I've been reading them for well over a decade and the decline is obvious and full of misinformation daily. There's no winning this fight through letting some random minimum wage moderator FB or Twitter hires, with zero appeals process, or any transparency, and obvious biases, deleting a few articles or comments that offend the type of people who live in the bay area or whatever American city they hire in.
jeffreyrogers 6y ago
There are also a lot of people who think the way media companies are acting (in terms of censoring/suppressing speech they don't agree with) is horrifying but are afraid to speak out against it because they fear the social or economic consequences of doing so.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Can you use your money as speech to short their stock? How else can you meaningfully joust with a multinational megacorp on an individual level? Why do you feel that it’s censorship or speech suppression as opposed to exercising their own right as a company to set and enforce their own Terms of Service? How would you change the current system? How would you enforce your changes? How would your changes apply to overseas firms, if that is even technically or legally possible?
  - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
    > Can you use your money as speech to short their stock? I don't think that would have any effect. > Why do you feel that it’s censorship or speech suppression Because they are removing or not allowing speech that doesn't fit certain criteria. That is basically the definition of censorship or suppression. Of course, it's not illegal, but a definition of right and wrong based on legality is fairly impoverished in my opinion. As for how I would change the current system, I'm not really sure. The problem could be solved by a change in culture, which I think is preferable to a legal solution, but the solution will have to be legal since I don't see our culture changing anytime soon. The most straightforward thing to do would be to treat sites like twitter/facebook as public spaces and so allow any sort of speech that isn't illegal.

74 points by aspenmayer 6y ago

For those who have trouble with the link: https://archive.st/archive/2020/6/www.washingtonpost.com/hwg9/www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/06/chan-zuckerberg-initiative-open-letter-trump/index.html https://archive.st/archive/2020/6/www.washingtonpost.com/hwg... Original title was too long. It was: Scientists funded by Zuckerberg sent him a letter calling Facebook’s practices ‘antithetical’ to his philanthropic mission

RodgerTheGreat 6y ago

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative's mission is to shelter most of Zuck's wealth from taxation while ensuring that he and his wife retain as much control over it as possible. Facebook's negative externalities are orthogonal to this mission.

liamcardenas 6y ago
It’s a for-profit LLC[1], not sure how he would be sheltering wealth... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Zuckerberg_Initiative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Zuckerberg_Initiative
ryan93 6y ago
If the money is going to actual scientists who cares that he controls it. Its his money!
- llukas 6y ago
  It is no longer his money after donating to the foundation. He ceded control of the money in order to get certain tax benefits.
  - ryan93 6y ago
    What are you talking about. He decides where the money goes even when it’s in the foundation. He gets tax benefits for giving it to things considered charitable by the government.
    - llukas 6y ago
      Did they stop teaching civics in class? https://chanzuckerberg.com/grants-ventures/grants/ https://chanzuckerberg.com/grants-ventures/grants/ "Grants are awarded via three funding entities: the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation, a 501(c)3 private foundation; the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Donor-Advised Fund (DAF) at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation; and Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy, a 501(c)4 organization." Now please do check how money needs to be spent by 501(c)3: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... He still has significant control and influence that can be exerted by foundation. Yet, buying lambo or yacht with this money is harder.
      - ComputerGuru 6y ago
        He does not need to buy a Lamborghini or a yacht with that money: there are plenty of other ways to use money to secure power or influence that do not involve the purchase of physical things.
        llukas 6y ago
        > He still has significant control and influence that can be exerted by foundation. You do not agree with this part or just to want to highlight influence part?
        ComputerGuru 6y ago
        I agree with that part but I disagree that the inability to purchase an expensive car with that money in any way matters at his scale.
austenallred 6y ago
Giving your wealth away may make it so you don’t have to pay taxes on it but it’s not really a “shelter”
rmrfstar 6y ago
Zuckerberg net worth: ~$78b. Mean US neurosurgeon annual income: ~$600k So Zuckerberg is worth 130K neurosurgeon-years. Neurosurgeons are the highest compensated surgery specialty [1]. In the US there are a total of 50k surgeons of any type [2]. Does anyone think that Zuckerberg created, with his own hands, >=3x the annual economic output of all US surgeons? [1] https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-average-doctor-salaries-by-specialty-e2bbbc0a6186 https://medium.com/nomad-health/complete-list-of-average-doc... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/209424/us-number-of-active-physicians-by-specialty-area/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/209424/us-number-of-acti...
- imgabe 6y ago
  Neurosurgeons can only work on one patient at a time. Facebook serves over a billion people, so yes that is entirely possible.
  - ihm 6y ago
    Did Mark Zuckerberg make Facebook all by himself?
    - imgabe 6y ago
      Nobody ever claimed he did. His net worth is, at the moment, ~11.6% of the total market cap of Facebook. Do you think the other people who helped create Facebook worked for free? Do you think a neurosurgeon does a surgery all by himself?
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        A better question is, did the other people who helped create Facebook receive total compensation anywhere close to proportional to the value they created for Facebook? Not a rhetorical question. I’m curious what the estimated value to Facebook a high level employee is, relative to the compensation they receive. Then compare that ratio to Zuckerberg’s ratio.

dannykwells 6y ago

Have any returned the money yet? Until then, well, its just more words.

JamisonM 6y ago
What is wrong with more words? Putting your name to something like this is certainly endangering future funding, that seems like more than just "words".

bitexploder 6y ago

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks —— This is what FB has always been

ryan93 6y ago
What bad things have happened to the people that submitted that information?
- McTossOut 6y ago
  Uh, in order: live in a society bottlenecked through a trashy parasitic exploitative dump of a communications tool, be subjected to psychological experimentation, be in a market where technology is constantly locked away and consuned by behemoth new megalodons whose sole purpose it to appreciate 400% every 10 years, live in a society malleable enough to be purchased, still haven't woken up from the nightmare.

tropheusduboisi 6y ago

I'm a scientist that benefits from this money. I'm not a Zuck fan, but I don't like strict policing of speech so I'm alright Zuck's move here. Moderate scientists keep quiet in academia for their own good.

boplicity 6y ago
The problem doesn't have anything to do with policing speech. The problem is the intentional propagation and promotion of inflammatory speech. It is one thing to allow hate speech, it is another to increase it's prominence because it is "more engaging." Facebook does just that.
- ryan93 6y ago
  Every one knows it's either trump saying fake tough guy stuff; or it was an actual order for the military to shoot looters. In which case people need to know so they can stay safe.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  The newspaper + money + printing costs system has done that for generations. If you want engaging information to stop being spread more than less-engaging information, then you're going to have to come up with a way to stop more engaging newspapers from printing more copies than less-engaging ones.
  - dannyr 6y ago
    There is a big difference between a newspaper and Facebook (with over a billion users) spreading misinformation. This is like comparing a match stick to jet fuel.
    - dmix 6y ago
      As long as you never click on a comments button or scroll down on any page, which is basically what Facebook is in reverse. The comment sections on NYT (apparently the "good" paper) is one of the worst places on the internet. Yet I'm totally okay with it existing because I understand stupid people exist, no matter how much (highly selective) censorship we allow to exist. Not to mention the serious decline in quality of actual NYT content which seems to select heavily for this commenting audience. I've been reading them for well over a decade and the decline is obvious and full of misinformation daily. There's no winning this fight through letting some random minimum wage moderator FB or Twitter hires, with zero appeals process, or any transparency, and obvious biases, deleting a few articles or comments that offend the type of people who live in the bay area or whatever American city they hire in.

jeffreyrogers 6y ago

There are also a lot of people who think the way media companies are acting (in terms of censoring/suppressing speech they don't agree with) is horrifying but are afraid to speak out against it because they fear the social or economic consequences of doing so.

aspenmayer 6y ago
Can you use your money as speech to short their stock? How else can you meaningfully joust with a multinational megacorp on an individual level? Why do you feel that it’s censorship or speech suppression as opposed to exercising their own right as a company to set and enforce their own Terms of Service? How would you change the current system? How would you enforce your changes? How would your changes apply to overseas firms, if that is even technically or legally possible?
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  > Can you use your money as speech to short their stock? I don't think that would have any effect. > Why do you feel that it’s censorship or speech suppression Because they are removing or not allowing speech that doesn't fit certain criteria. That is basically the definition of censorship or suppression. Of course, it's not illegal, but a definition of right and wrong based on legality is fairly impoverished in my opinion. As for how I would change the current system, I'm not really sure. The problem could be solved by a change in culture, which I think is preferable to a legal solution, but the solution will have to be legal since I don't see our culture changing anytime soon. The most straightforward thing to do would be to treat sites like twitter/facebook as public spaces and so allow any sort of speech that isn't illegal.